Your haplotype is very interesting and demonstrates once more how relative is the concept of variance. You are a relative recent subclade of R-L21 (DF5), which should be very recent in regard to the thinking of the majority of this forum, and you have so many mutations as to a supposed “modal”.

A superficial resemblance to a few people who have 492=13 doesn't mean much. That 492=13 is like the sound of someone dropping a big monkey wrench and scratching the finish of a fine car. (I don't mean that as an insult to U106ers. I mean it as the signal of something gone awry when dealing with the haplotype of someone who is U106-.)

Now if Selbie goes out to 67 markers and gets a 492=13, then things would be different. I would advise him to ask FTDNA to retest him for U106.

I have seen plenty of such cross-haplogroup resemblances among the members of my projects, i.e., 33/37, 32/37, etc., "matches" between L21s and U152s, U106s, and so on.

And yet some folks still want to insist that R-M269 in Europe has been there since the LGM.

I'm not examining the lot, but I would say the 492=13 fab four are all U106+.

The L21+ exemplars could actually form a cluster within DF5 or at least within L21 but not a very strong or exclusive one, if there are U106ers who share its off-modal values. To make it work, you would just need to be aware of that and screen out those who are U106+.

I have a similar problem with my own haplotype cluster. It has a superficial resemblance to the common U106+ L48+ "Frisian Modal Haplotype". When looking for members of it, I can only be sure with those who have either been SNP tested and found to be U106- or those who have 67 markers or more.

Unfortunately none of these four has been SNP tested, but they are closely related and it would be enough that one of them would be SNP tested. Anyway the closest to them are all R-L21 and the few R-U106 don’t have these values.It is the case to bet. How much?

Unfortunately none of these four has been SNP tested, but they are closely related and it would be enough that one of them would be SNP tested. Anyway the closest to them are all R-L21 and the few R-U106 don’t have these values.It is the case to bet. How much?

Gentleman's bet: no money.

I think all four with 492=13 are U106+.

Selbie, if he goes out to 67 markers (and he should), will have 492=12.

Unfortunately none of these four has been SNP tested, but they are closely related and it would be enough that one of them would be SNP tested. Anyway the closest to them are all R-L21 and the few R-U106 don’t have these values.It is the case to bet. How much?

Gentleman's bet: no money.

I think all four with 492=13 are U106+.

Selbie, if he goes out to 67 markers (and he should), will have 492=12.

Whoa!

He does have a 67-marker haplotype; he just never updated his Ysearch entry.

Unfortunately none of these four has been SNP tested, but they are closely related and it would be enough that one of them would be SNP tested. Anyway the closest to them are all R-L21 and the few R-U106 don’t have these values.It is the case to bet. How much?

Gentleman's bet: no money.

I think all four with 492=13 are U106+.

Selbie, if he goes out to 67 markers (and he should), will have 492=12.

Whoa!

He does have a 67-marker haplotype; he just never updated his Ysearch entry.

And he has 492=13!

I am red in the face now, but I would ask FTDNA for a retest of U106.

I should say that not all 67 markers of his upgrade are in, but he does have a 492=13 result.

I would ask FTDNA for a U106 test.

It could be a rare L21+ cluster with 492=13, but I think a lab error is more likely.

I was collecting all the L21 with DYS492=13 and I found our guy. But he isn't alone, then the mistake should be multiple!

You have lost, Rich! But, no money.

You were right. I was wrong. I lost.

I had my reasons for what I thought, but I bow to your investigation in this matter.

There are very very few L21 guys with 492=13. If I were Selbie, I would still ask for a retest of U106, just to be on the safe side.

I know of a number of lab errors in this connection. Vince Tilroe's result was one. He was told he was P312+ and U106- but had 492=13. A retest ultimately revealed that things were just the opposite. (I think his was a clerical error, though, some kind of paperwork mix-up.)

Of course, Selbie may be an exception. After all, he is further down the road and has a DF5+ result.

Mike has the three Grants (4M34M, 522C6, JFKZR) in a variety called 21-246-1514. It is obvious that Selbie belongs to the same variety. 522C6 is DF5+ Z248+. It seems none of them have tested for L627 or L658.

Mike has the three Grants (4M34M, 522C6, JFKZR) in a variety called 21-246-1514. It is obvious that Selbie belongs to the same variety. 522C6 is DF5+ Z248+. It seems none of them have tested for L627 or L658.

Mike is aware of Selbie and the variety for him will be updated next go round. The Grants are both at Y111 already, and are a distance of 34+ from the Cooper-Reynolds (L627) cluster, and 39+ from the Cain (L658) cluster. My recommendation is against testing either.

Robert's predictor operates on 67 markers, and the most interesting DF5 markers are only in the Y111 results.

Mike is aware of Selbie and the variety for him will be updated next go round. The Grants are both at Y111 already, and are a distance of 34+ from the Cooper-Reynolds (L627) cluster, and 39+ from the Cain (L658) cluster. My recommendation is against testing either.Robert's predictor operates on 67 markers, and the most interesting DF5 markers are only in the Y111 results.

What are you speaking about? From 68 to 111 markers the only value of a slow mutator out of the modal is DYS492=13, but in the first 67, as I have said above, we have

Shoot. I've been missing a good argument. I guess I'm just happy my kid hit a grand slam last night so I haven't needed to be contrarian yet today.

I can count 40 L21+ people who are 492=13 so it can happen even though less than 1% of L21 appears to be 13. There are even a couple who are 492=14 to go with a pretty good sized group of U152+ Z56+ folks.

Mike is aware of Selbie and the variety for him will be updated next go round. The Grants are both at Y111 already, and are a distance of 34+ from the Cooper-Reynolds (L627) cluster, and 39+ from the Cain (L658) cluster. My recommendation is against testing either.

I keep telling people, DF21 is really old. Look at DF5 and its broad GDs. DF21 is a couple of steps up. Same goes for some of the others like L513, Z253 and I think DF49 too. They are old, old within the scope of DF13.

Anatole K once said there were 12 founding fathers (or something close to that) for L21. I don't know about 12, but there are several large, old clades. The bush was already bushing out. This was no string bean phylogenetic tree.

Shoot. I've been missing a good argument. I guess I'm just happy my kid hit a grand slam last night so I haven't needed to be contrarian yet today.

I can count 40 L21+ people who are 492=13 so it can happen even though less than 1% of L21 appears to be 13. There are even a couple who are 492=14 to go with a pretty good sized group of U152+ Z56+ folks.

They are very consistently 19=15 389i=14 438=11 437=16 GataH4=10 464c,d=18,18. Those that have tested for 492 have been 492=13 so far and those that have tested for DF5 have been DF5+

It wasn't really a good argument. I was unaware of the cluster but aware of a lot of past lab errors with regard to 492=12, 492=13 and haplogroup assignments.

You know of 40 separate (not relatives) L21+ who have 492=13?

I might have missed one or two, but I counted 10 in the R-L21 Plus Project. That's out of a membership of 1,817, minus the 121 who are either in need of an L21+ result or are awaiting test results. Like I said, I might have missed one or two, but I'm pretty sure I didn't miss 30. I'm not doubting your count; I'm just surprised by it.

I know we have two or three with 492=14 and that there is a group within U152 that has 492=14 (and some with 492=13).

It's just that usually 492=13 is a red flag for U106. It's still a good rule of thumb.